brickclubfandomcom-20200213-history
Intro-Lovethefutureisthine
Les Misérables, Wraxall Translation: Introduction: Or, How to Deeply Anger a Flaming Liberal Who Happens to Really Enjoy the Book You’re Pooping On ~sigh~ This introduction. Golly. Also- this is pretty lengthy. I promise I won’t be as long-winded when we get into the actual book. It starts off mentioning the success of the novel, but THEN André Maurois, the indroduction’s author and an author himself, says “It is interesting, therefore, to consider the causes of this enduring good fortune and to decide whether is it justified by the literary and philosophical value of the work.” Ok then. I’m not really sure what the purpose of an introduction to a novel is, but if a person is reading the book, there’s a pretty good chance they’re doing so because they think they’ll like it. But criticize away, I suppose. Somebody’s paying you.Maurois then moves on to relating “essential events in Hugo’s career” sso basically Marius’ life story/s All this is fine. There’s maybe some speculation on why Hugo feels the way he does about some subjects, but there’s nothing wrong with that, really. Then he gives the reader a summary of the book, but it really only follows Valjean’s storyline (nobody else is necessary, you see, because it would mess up points he wants to make later). I’m revisiting my annotations, but the first thing Maurois says that sets me off enough to write something is the line “Jean Valjean is materially and spiritually saved by the good works of the bishop.” Sure, Myriel is the biggest driving force in his transformation, and as JVJ faces moral struggles throughout the novel, we keep coming back to Myriel, but I want to say that it’s MUCH more complicated than just “hey I helped you out once and said I wanted you to serve God and NOW EVERYTHING IS HAPPY FOREVER YAY”. And that’s part of the reason that I love this book- JVJ struggles again and again. The next thing that happens also angers me. “It is easy to understand why most French readers loved a book in praise of the masses and offering the unfortunate such high hopes of rehabilitation. These simple, gentle ideas moved the crowds of readers for the same reason as Tolstoy’s did later in Russia. But Tolstoy, an aristocrat by birth, and well-acquainted with the élite, gives us a more equitable picture of it than Hugo.” This is where my liberalism comes in, and I apologize if anyone is offended by some of the things I now have to say. I read the above passage as “Hugo’s points are not justified in this novel because he did not think it necessary to filter his story through the eyes of those whom it did not concern,” and I DO NOT appreciate that. It puzzles me. I’m not a great big 19th century scholar (yet), but somehow I’m gonna make the assumption that, like in America today, the upper class got to explain their side of things MUUUUCH more easily than the lower class. Just a hunch. Based on Hugo’s introduction to the novel. And also because it would make sense that one reason he felt the novel needed to be written was because the stories of the lower classes needed to be told. Maurois then discusses some dude named Lamartine, who I will admit I have no knowledge of. I don’t think I like him very much anyway. He mentions that the book’s political romanticism is dangerous. This also set me off. Maybe I’m super New-Wave about things. I’m coming at this whole introduction from a 2013 standpoint, not a 1938 one. But I believe that everyone should have a political ideal that they stand behind. And it should be just that- an ideal. It’s impossible to ever fully attain it, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t fight AS HARD AS YOU CAN to get as close as possible. And writing a book can be one way of doing that. And everything I’ve discussed up to this point wasn’t the part that made me Very Angry. This next part is. Lamartine THEN has to go on and say “The title of Victor Hugo’s book is false, because we have not Les Misérables, the wretched, here, but rather the Guilty and the Lazy, for no one is innocent and no one works in this society of thieves… we have here the poem of vices (perhaps too harshly punished) and of the most richly merited chastisements…This book in its arraignment of society should more properly be called the epic of the rabble… I do not understand why Hugo makes the universal suffering of human beings the subject of bitterness, of virulent criticism, of an indictment of society… He has aggravated the condition of the patient instead of consoling and curing it… To sow the ideal and the impossible is to sow the sacred fury of disappointment in the masses.” WHERE DO I EVEN START. We are going to start with the idea that the poor are poor because they are lazy. I DON’T SEE A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS BOOK WHO IS POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY. I DON’T SEE A SINGLE PERSON IN MY LIFE WHO IS POOR BECAUSE THEY ARE LAZY, AND I AM REALLY REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING PEOPLE TRY TO TELL ME THAT IS THE CASE. /rant (sort of). So now that we’ve passed how that makes me livid, we can move on to how I’m not really sure why Hugo needs to be bitter about “the universal suffering of human beings”, either. No really. Empathy for others is not necessary. The government/laws are not in place to keep humans from suffering, because it’s ok to see other people starve, as long as it isn’t me! :) After I was finished seething in anger over that whole business, I got to read about Maurois complaining that the novel wasn’t super Realist. I’m not really sure what to say about that except I’m sorry that Hugo wasn’t writing the entirety of the novel during that period. And I honestly don’t know if the novel would have been as successful as it is if it were not Romantic. I need to be swept up in the emotions of the characters, feel the deep nationalism felt for France, and the awe as someone stands in front of God. I like flowery prose! The introduction is wrapped up by saying that Les Misérables does not debase the reader, nor does it “give him greater confidence in life and in himself,” but it “speaks to man… more of his liberty than of his slavery”. Which is a nice way to end it, even if there was a whole bunch of stuff in the middle that I thought was unnecessary. Commentary Pilferingapples WOW I— I feel better about grabbing the Denny now. This is hilariously appalling. Warning: Under the cut be mild politics, if you’re put off by that. But also an ostensible pro calling Hugo’s ideas DANGEROUS so whoo-hoo full points Hugo, 150 years later and you’re still scary! To Certain People. Edwarddespard Ugh. Yuck. Sounds like some fairly typical 1930s literary criticism/historiography - I mean, quoting Lamartine? Lamartine was part of the liberal opposition to the monarchy, but he was about as wishy-washy as they come (see Blanc’s descriptions of his dithering the night of 5-6 June, when the liberal opposition met at his house to devise a response). He was fundamental in helping to found the Second Republic in February 1848, but the way in which he did so essentially set up the barricades of June…he manipulated the exclusion of those representatives he thought of as too radical, disregarding what the people who were doing the fighting out there on the streets actually wanted (I tend to get very cranky reading accounts of how the provisional government was set up). He did do some good - like support the abolition of slavery and the death penalty - but also supported and justified the colonization of Algiers. I am…not the biggest fan of Lamartine. And it’s no wonder he didn’t like Hugo’s work - he would have resented Hugo’s positive portrayal of June 1832, given how he responded to the radicals in February 1832 and worked to minimise their role. Hugo’s views are still quite bourgeois, I’d say - he believes in education to eliminate the dangerous classes, but is still influenced by ideas about the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. But yes, the enthusiastic embrace of this work did pose a threat to the ruling elite and the smug bourgeois - they were willing to idealise “The People” (as Louis-Philippe did in 1830 following the Revolution that he managed to co-opt to put himself on the throne), but the poor and working classes were still seen as a potential threat to those who held the reigns of political power. I still see people shying away from the political implications of Hugo’s work - this is why, I think, so many adaptations - particularly those from an Anglo-American tradition - gloss over the republican sentiments of the story. Margolotta Andre Maurois wrote a biography of Hugo called Olympio. I read a Chinese translation ages ago. Can’t remember if there was any criticism of Les Mis in it. I had the impression that Maurois was always on the side of his subject when he wrote a biography. But he could be criticizing the same person in someone else’s biography. Alphonse de Lamartine was also a Romantic poet and politician — wikipedia has an article which mentioned his involvement in the second republic. I seem to recall some comparisons between his involvement during the 1848 revolution and Hugo’s afterwards. His criticism against Les Mis is well-known. Graham Robb discussed it in his review of Vargas Llosa’s “The Temptation of the Impossible.” Basically he said that first it was written during Hugo’s exile so praising him in paper might cost a journalist his job. And secondly, Lamartine obviously did not know the poor as well as Hugo did. Kcrabb88 I feel like most everyone has said everything I might say already, but WOW. Just…wow. My mouth dropped open in horror when I read that, and am now glad I don’t have that translation. I guess my question is WHY would they have THAT literary critic or whoever he is, write the introduction to a novel he doesn’t seem to like? Way to really miss the point, oh introduction writer.